Is it still possible to get a classical education in today's learning culture?

Indeed it is, according to Tracy Lee Simmons, director of the Dow Journalism Program at Hillsdale College and author of Climbing Parnassus: A New Apologia for Greek and Latin. He holds a master's degree from Oxford University in the classics and is a frequent contributor to Crisis and other periodicals.

He spoke to Register correspondent Kathryn Jean Lopez about the value of a classical education.

When you write about classical education you mean more than learning enough Latin to help with the SATs. What is a classical education?

This was the humanist's education, in the sense in which Erasmus and Thomas More were humanists. A classical education used to mean simply a curriculum based upon Greek and Latin. Of course, that curriculum also included math, history and literature, but they were secondary; the two ancient languages were primary. Greek and Latin were what made the curriculum classical, nothing else.

Unfortunately, as I say in the book, a classical education can mean lots of things these days, practically everything from Shakespeare to phonics. But, on the upper end, most definitions seem to have in common a fairly demanding curriculum and a serious reconnection to the history of the Western world — but often without the languages themselves. I think this is deadly, because it excludes the rigor. Over time it gives us the illusion of knowing things we don't. So I've tried to re-emphasize Greek and Latin as being vital, in fact central, to a classical education.

It's not really my definition, mind you. It's what everyone from T.S. Eliot on back for hundreds of years would have recognized. A classical education forms the mind by classical models of thought and language and gives us a past.

Should everyone be getting a classical education, to some degree? Where do you start in terms of grade/age level?

Well, after admitting, as we should, that no time is too late to start — high school, college or later — we must also acknowledge a few humbling facts. If the classical languages are to serve their formative function, a training in them should begin as early as possible. It's still common in European countries, for instance, to begin Latin around the age of 10, and that's usually after the child has already begun a second modern language. Let's not kid ourselves: That kind of schooling is not merely different from ours, it's superior. Children end up maturing sooner and knowing more.

Who should get a classical education? In a perfect world, everyone would have a shot at it, at least at the beginning. But the real answer is, whoever can. That is, whoever is blessed with a good mind, as well as with the advantages of good schools with traditional values and practices — remember, we need both. Where Latin is still available in America, students still start somewhere near the ninth grade. That's okay, but it's later than it needs to be. Under the older system, which some American schools followed, a Latin student could be reading Virgil — or a Greek student, Homer — by that stage. I see no reason to waste time the way we do in this country, though we can see where we have gone wrong. If we are not worried about the i mmediate and obvious utility of a subject, we're worried that our children will feel bad about themselves if they don't get straight As. Both motives are low and unbecoming, and they don't, as we say now, send a very good message to young people about the life of the mind.

What are the current trends? Who is getting classical educations? Who is studying Greek and Latin?

Again, whoever can. It's a parched world out there, but there are signs of hope. The Catholic schools could once be counted on at least for teaching Latin, if not Greek, and many still do. But you find a disturbing number of Catholic schools getting rid of Latin, and failing to stress it where it survives, which means of course that it probably won't survive very long. Many home schoolers are trying to provide Latin, and mostly for all the right reasons. But if the parents haven't had Latin, or not much of it, they can't take their children very far without expert tutoring. The best places remain good private schools where, for whatever reasons, the good and rigorous subjects remain and are well taught by extraordinary, if underpaid, teachers. Those schools are out there. You even see Latin returning here and there to public schools, and that should put the Catholic schools to shame.

Among the advantages of Greek and Latin is the discipline that comes with memorization. Rote learning is out these days. Is a comeback possible?

Yes, I think a comeback of rote is probable. The Gross National Stupidity might force the issue. To say that Latin helps your English is to say the least, but it still doesn't say much. More disturbingly, people are beginning to see that their intelligent children don't know very much. Here they are, with minds as strong as any the world has seen, and those minds simply don't contain very much, nor are they very well-molded. And they've frittered away their childhoods on public-school silliness like multiculturalism and time-wasting projects instead of reading books. They know things, but they haven't learned much systematically. If they had taken, say, French and Latin by the age of 12 — along with Algebra I — they'd not only know all that comes with them; they'd have gained the ability to teach themselves whatever comes along.

You say this is all a lost cause, don't you? Is it really? Then what are your goals?

It's mostly a lost cause, but not completely. It's certainly a lost cause as far as the educational establishment — the NEA and AFT and so forth — is concerned. Talking to them is like talking to a mud fence. I guess my goal is to encourage the creation of a remnant of those who know what's good and what will promote a healthy society, which is of course healthy, intelligent individuals, not big schemes for social improvement. We need to start small. And since I've pretty much given up on the education establishment to reinstate some decency, I suppose we must form a disestablishment of civilized people. It's possible.

Maybe we'll need to return to monastic schools, where the mind and soul are formed together. That would be best. The Benedictines have had it right for 1,500 years. They brought salvation, sanity and civilization — not a bad deal, all things considered.

Where would you send parents who want to ensure their kids get a classical education or some sort?

Start from home. Some public and parochial schools continue to retain their classics, and they might be just around the corner. You may not need to go to an expensive private boarding school.

Here's one sign to watch: Generally, the earlier the students start their languages, the better and more serious the program is likely to be. Be wary of those who prefer smiling children to intelligent children; same with adolescents, only more so. Be careful with those schools offering Latin because it's a current fad; they must be committed to it, regardless of what the latest studies are saying. Incidentally, make sure that the parents aren't running the school, because that's a recipe for an oozing demise of anything like real education.

Sad to say, the average baby boomer parent these days is as ignorant of the goals of a humane education as children are, and good things and good people always get hurt when ignorant busybodies prevail. If your local private school isn't offering Latin, be bold and ask the headmaster or principal why, and watch him squirm. Often the reasons are not very good, and usually schools that provide more computer training than intellectual formation are ensuring a lifetime of mediocrity for those children. If that's what you want, go for it. Otherwise, politely walk away.

How can knowing Greek and Latin enrich your religious life — particularly if you are Catholic?

Namely, by direct access to high ideals and beauty. Latin is to Catholics what Hebrew is to the Jews. It's that simple, and that profound. To lose Latin now would be a calamity, doctrinal and aesthetic, of the first order. It formed the Catholic mind and sensibility. For many centuries, the Latin Mass alone gave us that access to a peculiar kind of richness and beauty, which no other tradition, excepting the Eastern Orthodox, has.

But, unlike the Eastern Orthodoxy, that sensibility was spread very far, to the corners of the known world and changed it. As much as I love Italian, I'm glad Aquinas wrote the Summa in Latin. And while St. Augustine is fine in English, he's better, and more beautiful, in Latin.

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.